Whether the zero rest mass hypothesis was falsified has no bearing on whether the opposite hypothesis is falsifiable. I'm aware of the experiments; I was just keeping with the original example statement.
Alcohol is one of the solvents used. Most electronic parts will specify that the markings withstand something like 5 minutes in an ultrasonic alcohol bath. Distilled or DI water is also commonly used, usually with a mild detergent of some sort.
Well, you'll want to regulate the pressure down a fair bit and not get the nozzle too close. As long as it's shoving the drops off the board, there's enough force. Some sort of diffuser nozzle is handy but not required. If you're using the canned "air" stuff there's nothing to worry about.
But if we failed to observe oscillation, that wouldn't falsify anything. There could be other reasons they weren't oscillating, or that we weren't able to detect it. You'd have to have some sort of experiment where you could make a positive observation and conclude the neutrinos had zero mass in order for the hypothesis that they have nonzero mass to be falsifiable.
Start with a rinse with distilled water. There's very little in electronics that gets hurt by water anyway -- the issues are with it shorting out, or longer term, corrosion. You'll want to open all the cases to do this, and then ideally blow them dry with a compressed air nozzle. Letting it evaporate will just redeposit all the crud you cleaned off.
Then rinse with alcohol, and again blow it off rather than letting it dry. At this point, if it looks clean it is, as far as the electronics are concerned. I imagine the same is true from a mold standpoint, but you probably know more about that than I do.
If things are being really stubborn, an ultrasonic cleaning bath in alcohol is remarkably effective (and completely safe for the electronics). 5-10 minutes should be plenty. I don't know off hand where to find a large one cheaply, though -- that may take some investigation. If you can't borrow one, I'd just take some warm soapy water and a toothbrush and work at it by hand (and then repeat the distilled water and alcohol rinses to remove any soap and such).
If any of these things have moving parts (eg DVD player) they'll be more difficult. None of this will hurt anything, but if there are any gears that are supposed to be greased this will remove that. Some rubber in pulleys and such might not like the alcohol. But, most modern cheap moving parts are unlubricated nylon, so there isn't likely to be an issue. Cooling fans are usually unlubricated, either with a plain nylon bearing or ball bearings, and so should be ok with this cleaning treatment.
Similarly, hard drives are almost certainly a lost cause. I'd try powering them up, but if they've been underwater then the water likely got in through the pressure equalization holes. I wouldn't clean them (wipe down the outside with a damp sponge, but nothing more aggressive) -- just hope for the best and expect them to have died.
Good luck, and may I suggest you invest in a more serious pump?
Why wouldn't they be interested in planets? Planets are convenient concentrations of useful materials located at interesting distances from readily available energy sources. Maybe they don't choose to live on the planets, but they're interesting anyway.
Well, heavy nuclei weren't around that long, and it's a plausible assumption that complex chemistry is a prerequisite of life. But it would be trivial for some other civilization to have a million years on us, or a few hundred million. And that's certainly capable of producing differences we couldn't begin to comprehend.
His criticism of SERI is basically saying "the hypothesis that the neutrino has a rest mass of zero is scientific, but the hypothesis that a neutrino has a rest mass that is not zero is unscientific." This is silly; the same experiments would be used to test either hypothesis.
No, Chriton is right. Assuming your experiments measure the mass of the neutrino with some error, then you can never falsify the hypothesis "neutrinos have nonzero rest mass." All the experiments can do is push the upper bound on the mass closer to zero*. Falsifiability is one of the requirements for a hypothesis to be scientific. Since your experiment can't establish the mass as zero, only require it to be closer to zero than the last experiment, no experiment you do can contradict the hypothesis. OTOH, an hypothesis that "the rest mass of the neutrino is at least X" is scientific for any X, as long as it is possible to conduct an experiment with that degree of accuracy (even if it's impractical). Similarly, the hypothesis that neutrinos have zero rest mass is scientific -- it would be easy to falsify, with any experiment that showed a nonzero mass.
* (IANAPP, there may be experiments that distinguish between exactly zero and not quite zero that don't put an error bar around the measurement of mass. If that's the case, then either hypothesis is falsifiable.)
There's another option: take it as a starting point for discussion, and see where it takes you. For example, both Fermi's Paradox and the Drake Equation are relevant to the question of the Great Filter.
A terawatt signal radiating uniformly would produce 1e12 / (4*pi*(4e16)^2) w/m^2 = 5.0e-23 w/m^2. With a dish the size of Arecibo (7.3e4 m^2) that's -144 dBm (decibels referred to milliwatts). For comparison, the received GPS signal strength is ~ -133 dBm. With a slightly narrower bandwidth, or signal processing techniques that can work at lower SNR (eg looking for a carrier wave over extended periods -- exactly the sort of stuff SETI@home does) that extra order of magnitude isn't hard to come by.
Note that there are efforts ongoing to build larger area arrays (eg the square kilometer array), improve reciever electronics (chilling the front-end amplifier lowers the inherent amplifier thermal noise, for example), and improve signal processing techniques. Also, for certain types of transmission, the 1TW estimate isn't unreasonable -- Arecibo has radar transmitters with as much as 20TW effective isotropic power (lower total power, aimed at a small fraction of the sky). Given the right sort of source signal and extended observation, something like Arecibo could see some of our leakage signals, not just intentional transmissions.
I have a glass desk. Obviously the optical mouse has trouble. I would, however, love to get rid of the mousepad -- it always seems like one more piece of clutter (of which my desk already has enough, thank you). I'm guessing this new tech comes closer, but that there's a ways to go before glass surfaces are within reach.
Exactly. The horror genre has become obsessed with gore. The more you show the audience, the more they know, the less frightening it is. You need to put enough on screen to make it clear there's something to be afraid of, but then let fear of the unknown take over. There is *nothing* you can put on the screen that will outdo my imagination for making me afraid.
It won't keep some perv from using mailnator to set up a myspace page, but if they get caught trolling myspace with it, the fact that they didn't register their e-mail address means that they get a longer prison sentence. That's the whole point.
Why is this a good thing, exactly? If they should be in jail longer, then make the jail terms for the offense that actually hurt someone longer. I really don't see how whether they used an alternate email address or not changes how much harm was done, or how long they should be in jail for as a result. The *only* way this law makes sense is if it has preventative value. And, as other have explained in more detail, it has none. The only effects are retroactive, but the only possible benefit is preventative. That doesn't sound like a good law to me.
Passing unenforceable laws only serves to lessen respect for the law as a whole.
IPv6 has a 128 bit address, not 64. It's faster for specialized routers to work with fixed with fields, so they just made it *really* big. No one thinks we'll ever need 2^128 addresses -- this lets us "waste" lots of bits on organizing things conveniently.
If we thought the delay would actually allow MS to release a product free of serious bugs, we'd be glad. If, however, they miss release dates and then release with major known issues still present, then we laugh.
That method will result in structurally unsound pieces (not enough interlocking). His code apparently optimizes visual accuracy against structural soundness.
Burst transmissions to a satellite while not observing? Optical focused beam links to a relay satellite also work. As another commenter pointed out, the L4 / L5 points are the obvious spots. Longer term, you could consider laying optical fiber.
Perhaps that's your problem; there are ways to learn about candidates other than what's on TV. While obviously none are perfect, some of them are better at conveying what a candidate is actually like.
Unfortunately, the *massive* power requirements of such operation mean that they require a rocket engine for propulsion -- and rockets have a rather substantial appetite for propellant. (BTW, the Shkval only goes at ~200 knots, not supersonic.) The shkval is largely rocket propellant, and even so only gets 7-13km range. There are almost certainly improvements possible, but I'd be surprised if you could build a sub that supercavitated for a long enough range to be useful as a sub and not just a missile / torpedo.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether the zero rest mass hypothesis was falsified has no bearing on whether the opposite hypothesis is falsifiable. I'm aware of the experiments; I was just keeping with the original example statement.
Alcohol is one of the solvents used. Most electronic parts will specify that the markings withstand something like 5 minutes in an ultrasonic alcohol bath. Distilled or DI water is also commonly used, usually with a mild detergent of some sort.
Well, you'll want to regulate the pressure down a fair bit and not get the nozzle too close. As long as it's shoving the drops off the board, there's enough force. Some sort of diffuser nozzle is handy but not required. If you're using the canned "air" stuff there's nothing to worry about.
But if we failed to observe oscillation, that wouldn't falsify anything. There could be other reasons they weren't oscillating, or that we weren't able to detect it. You'd have to have some sort of experiment where you could make a positive observation and conclude the neutrinos had zero mass in order for the hypothesis that they have nonzero mass to be falsifiable.
Start with a rinse with distilled water. There's very little in electronics that gets hurt by water anyway -- the issues are with it shorting out, or longer term, corrosion. You'll want to open all the cases to do this, and then ideally blow them dry with a compressed air nozzle. Letting it evaporate will just redeposit all the crud you cleaned off.
Then rinse with alcohol, and again blow it off rather than letting it dry. At this point, if it looks clean it is, as far as the electronics are concerned. I imagine the same is true from a mold standpoint, but you probably know more about that than I do.
If things are being really stubborn, an ultrasonic cleaning bath in alcohol is remarkably effective (and completely safe for the electronics). 5-10 minutes should be plenty. I don't know off hand where to find a large one cheaply, though -- that may take some investigation. If you can't borrow one, I'd just take some warm soapy water and a toothbrush and work at it by hand (and then repeat the distilled water and alcohol rinses to remove any soap and such).
If any of these things have moving parts (eg DVD player) they'll be more difficult. None of this will hurt anything, but if there are any gears that are supposed to be greased this will remove that. Some rubber in pulleys and such might not like the alcohol. But, most modern cheap moving parts are unlubricated nylon, so there isn't likely to be an issue. Cooling fans are usually unlubricated, either with a plain nylon bearing or ball bearings, and so should be ok with this cleaning treatment.
Similarly, hard drives are almost certainly a lost cause. I'd try powering them up, but if they've been underwater then the water likely got in through the pressure equalization holes. I wouldn't clean them (wipe down the outside with a damp sponge, but nothing more aggressive) -- just hope for the best and expect them to have died.
Good luck, and may I suggest you invest in a more serious pump?
Why wouldn't they be interested in planets? Planets are convenient concentrations of useful materials located at interesting distances from readily available energy sources. Maybe they don't choose to live on the planets, but they're interesting anyway.
Well, heavy nuclei weren't around that long, and it's a plausible assumption that complex chemistry is a prerequisite of life. But it would be trivial for some other civilization to have a million years on us, or a few hundred million. And that's certainly capable of producing differences we couldn't begin to comprehend.
His criticism of SERI is basically saying "the hypothesis that the neutrino has a rest mass of zero is scientific, but the hypothesis that a neutrino has a rest mass that is not zero is unscientific." This is silly; the same experiments would be used to test either hypothesis.
No, Chriton is right. Assuming your experiments measure the mass of the neutrino with some error, then you can never falsify the hypothesis "neutrinos have nonzero rest mass." All the experiments can do is push the upper bound on the mass closer to zero*. Falsifiability is one of the requirements for a hypothesis to be scientific. Since your experiment can't establish the mass as zero, only require it to be closer to zero than the last experiment, no experiment you do can contradict the hypothesis. OTOH, an hypothesis that "the rest mass of the neutrino is at least X" is scientific for any X, as long as it is possible to conduct an experiment with that degree of accuracy (even if it's impractical). Similarly, the hypothesis that neutrinos have zero rest mass is scientific -- it would be easy to falsify, with any experiment that showed a nonzero mass.
* (IANAPP, there may be experiments that distinguish between exactly zero and not quite zero that don't put an error bar around the measurement of mass. If that's the case, then either hypothesis is falsifiable.)
There's another option: take it as a starting point for discussion, and see where it takes you. For example, both Fermi's Paradox and the Drake Equation are relevant to the question of the Great Filter.
A terawatt signal radiating uniformly would produce 1e12 / (4*pi*(4e16)^2) w/m^2 = 5.0e-23 w/m^2. With a dish the size of Arecibo (7.3e4 m^2) that's -144 dBm (decibels referred to milliwatts). For comparison, the received GPS signal strength is ~ -133 dBm. With a slightly narrower bandwidth, or signal processing techniques that can work at lower SNR (eg looking for a carrier wave over extended periods -- exactly the sort of stuff SETI@home does) that extra order of magnitude isn't hard to come by.
Note that there are efforts ongoing to build larger area arrays (eg the square kilometer array), improve reciever electronics (chilling the front-end amplifier lowers the inherent amplifier thermal noise, for example), and improve signal processing techniques. Also, for certain types of transmission, the 1TW estimate isn't unreasonable -- Arecibo has radar transmitters with as much as 20TW effective isotropic power (lower total power, aimed at a small fraction of the sky). Given the right sort of source signal and extended observation, something like Arecibo could see some of our leakage signals, not just intentional transmissions.
Currently, I actually use a piece of typing paper taped down. Large, and I can just use the desk space on top of it without setting aside.
I have a glass desk. Obviously the optical mouse has trouble. I would, however, love to get rid of the mousepad -- it always seems like one more piece of clutter (of which my desk already has enough, thank you). I'm guessing this new tech comes closer, but that there's a ways to go before glass surfaces are within reach.
Exactly. The horror genre has become obsessed with gore. The more you show the audience, the more they know, the less frightening it is. You need to put enough on screen to make it clear there's something to be afraid of, but then let fear of the unknown take over. There is *nothing* you can put on the screen that will outdo my imagination for making me afraid.
It won't keep some perv from using mailnator to set up a myspace page, but if they get caught trolling myspace with it, the fact that they didn't register their e-mail address means that they get a longer prison sentence. That's the whole point.
Why is this a good thing, exactly? If they should be in jail longer, then make the jail terms for the offense that actually hurt someone longer. I really don't see how whether they used an alternate email address or not changes how much harm was done, or how long they should be in jail for as a result. The *only* way this law makes sense is if it has preventative value. And, as other have explained in more detail, it has none. The only effects are retroactive, but the only possible benefit is preventative. That doesn't sound like a good law to me.
Passing unenforceable laws only serves to lessen respect for the law as a whole.
IPv6 has a 128 bit address, not 64. It's faster for specialized routers to work with fixed with fields, so they just made it *really* big. No one thinks we'll ever need 2^128 addresses -- this lets us "waste" lots of bits on organizing things conveniently.
If we thought the delay would actually allow MS to release a product free of serious bugs, we'd be glad. If, however, they miss release dates and then release with major known issues still present, then we laugh.
You can get 1xX and 2xX blocks for X=1,2,3,4,6,8. The 1x1 blocks are less common, but they are available.
That's kinda hard with the 1x1 blocks the parent suggested.
That method will result in structurally unsound pieces (not enough interlocking). His code apparently optimizes visual accuracy against structural soundness.
Ben Bernanke, is that you?
You can configure that in your display preferences. The prefs link on the left (or top right on the awful idle display mode).
The best example would have to be this strip and the resultant web site (NSWF).
Burst transmissions to a satellite while not observing? Optical focused beam links to a relay satellite also work. As another commenter pointed out, the L4 / L5 points are the obvious spots. Longer term, you could consider laying optical fiber.
Perhaps that's your problem; there are ways to learn about candidates other than what's on TV. While obviously none are perfect, some of them are better at conveying what a candidate is actually like.
Unfortunately, the *massive* power requirements of such operation mean that they require a rocket engine for propulsion -- and rockets have a rather substantial appetite for propellant. (BTW, the Shkval only goes at ~200 knots, not supersonic.) The shkval is largely rocket propellant, and even so only gets 7-13km range. There are almost certainly improvements possible, but I'd be surprised if you could build a sub that supercavitated for a long enough range to be useful as a sub and not just a missile / torpedo.